Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh Uphold Section 498A as a Vital Protection for Women

Introduction

An important decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of India on April 15, 2025, in the case of Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India and Others. This decision reaffirmed the constitutional legitimacy of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. A public interest litigation that challenged the provision on the grounds of alleged misuse was dismissed by a two-judge bench consisting of Honorable Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Honorable Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. There were two judges on the bench. The Supreme Court decided not to tamper with the statute, citing the fact that safeguarding women from cruel treatment within the context of marriage continues to be a constitutional and important societal requirement. Within the scope of this article, the facts, the legal provisions, and the fundamental constitutional concerns that the Supreme Court addressed in this particular case are investigated.

The Reality of the Situation

The petitioner, a non-governmental group known as Janshruti (People’s Voice), submitted a writ petition in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The organization sought that rules and guidelines that were gender-neutral be implemented in order to address issues of domestic violence and harassment. In addition to this, it requested that the Court declare that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which is now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, violated the basic principles of the Constitution. The person who submitted the petition asserted that women were abusing the system by filing bogus lawsuits against their spouses and in-laws, which resulted in mental and financial strain for families that were not responsible for making the allegations.

However, despite hearing the arguments that were offered by the senior counsel for the petitioner, the court decided not to accommodate the petition. It was declared by the bench that it was not convinced by the arguments and that it did not find any basis to interfere with the provision or to direct the government to create gender-neutral laws regarding the subject matter.

Section 498A’s Legal Foundation is a Legal Definition

The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 was the legislation that resulted in the addition of Section 498A to the Indian Penal Code. Specifically, the rule was enacted in response to the growing number of instances of cruelty committed against married women, notably in relation to dowry requirement. A legislative response to the growing concerns around domestic violence, mental torture, and deaths tied to dowries in Indian society, this legislation was enacted. When a woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment, the husband or his relatives are susceptible to repercussions under this article, which defines the term “cruelty.”

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the legislature had enacted this section with a specific purpose in mind, which was to offer protection and legal redress to women who are subjected to abuse and harassment within the context of their marital homes. The legislation was drafted with the intention of redressing the power imbalance and shielding a vulnerable minority from the influence of the system.

The Principle of Positive Discrimination

Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution is that which is considered to be one of the most important fundamental principles that supported the creation of Section 498A. The State is granted the authority to make particular provisions for women and children by virtue of this article. The Supreme Court noted that legislation such as Section 498A are examples of positive discrimination. Although these laws may look unfair on the surface, their purpose is to redress historical and societal injustices.

The bench made the observation that the fact that a legislation protects just women does not always mean that it violates the Constitution. In point of fact, the federal government is authorized by the Constitution to adopt special regulations for groups that are more likely to be subjected to exploitation and abuse. This is a constitutionally mandated practice.

Misuse of the law is a reason for genuine concern, but it is not a basis for invalidation.

The petitioner had brought attention to a number of instances in which Section 498A was allegedly abused at various times. It was noted by the Court that there have been cases in which the law has been utilized to file complaints that are either untrue or overstated. In spite of this, the justices made it quite apparent that the mere misuse of a law cannot be a sufficient justification to invalidate or reduce it. In spite of the fact that every legal provision has the potential to be abused, even those that pertain to taxes, bail, or preventive detention, this does not render them unconstitutional.

By referring to previous decisions, such as the one in the case of Susil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, the bench explained that although the courts are required to prevent misuse by conducting a thorough investigation of each individual case, the legislation itself must continue to be robust in order to safeguard genuine victims. Acquittal or dismissal of false accusations are two possible remedies that might be pursued in the event that misuse is demonstrated in a specific case.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Attempting to Find a Middle Ground Between Rights

The importance of preserving a delicate equilibrium was highlighted by the Court. The rights of those who have been wrongfully accused as a result of misuse are part of one side. Genuine victims who are seeking protection from violence, cruelty, and dowry harassment are entitled to certain rights, which are on the other side of the argument. Concerns were voiced by the judges on the possibility that, in the process of watering down Section 498A, society could forget the greater number of instances in which the provision has prevented the loss of life and assisted women in escaping violent relationships.

Based on a small number of incidents, the bench stated that it is not possible to draw a general conclusion about misuse. As an alternative, each and every complaint ought to be investigated by the proper court based on the specific facts of the case. This would guarantee that justice is served without weakening the protective purpose of the law.

The Separation of Powers and the Function of the Judiciary in Civil Government

In addition to addressing the idea of separation of powers, the Supreme Court decided not to throw down Section 498A. The legislature, and not the court, is the body that is tasked with the responsibility of drafting laws, as stated in the Constitution. It is only possible for the courts to declare a statute unconstitutional if it is manifestly arbitrary, does not have a legitimate goal, or breaches fundamental rights. Due to the fact that Section 498A serves a distinct social purpose and has not been demonstrated to be in violation of the Constitution, the justices stated that it was not the responsibility of the Court to either amend or replace it.

They went on to emphasize that the mere existence of public debate or growing criticism cannot be a cause for judicial interference in a piece of law that is legally sound. Furthermore, the fact that the provision has been in effect for more than forty years indicates that the legislature continues to acknowledge the significance of the provision.

The Continuation of the Need for Legal Protection in Light of Social Realities

A profound comprehension of the facts that exist on the ground in Indian society was also reflected in the verdict. The Court observed that dowry harassment and domestic abuse are still pervasive issues in today’s society. As a result of the pressure from their families, fear, or the social shame, many victims do not even come forward with their stories. The judges made the observation that legislative protections such as Section 498A are essential in order to give women the confidence to stand up for themselves and seek justice.

Recent societal trends in which dowry exchanges are publicly broadcast on social media were chastised by the bench, which brought to light the significant extent to which this issue is still deeply rooted. The decision made it abundantly obvious that the fight against domestic abuse cannot be diminished on the basis of the conduct of a small number of individuals who behave in a violation of the law.

The ruling that the Supreme Court of India made in the case of Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India and Others is a resounding confirmation of the constitutional legitimacy and social significance of Section 498A. Both the Honorable Mr. Justice Surya Kant and the Honorable Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the statute while acknowledging the necessity of using judicial prudence in certain instances. They made it quite apparent that the occasional abuse of a protective statute does not warrant the abolition of the law or the watering down of its provisions.